[opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside
- From: Craig Birkmaier <brewmastercraig@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:16:23 -0400
On Jul 30, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
Because broadcasters are BROADCASTERS, not OTT services.
Legacy thinking, stuck in the mud. Broadcasters are the local entity, charged
with delivering TV content, owned primarily by the main TV networks, to
households in local markets.
Yup. And that is what they will continue to do using the business model that is
so financially lucrative for both the congloms and the local broadcasters.
And that's not mud the business model is stuck in Bert. It's OIL.
The old analogy is still true: those are not broadcast transmission towers,
they are oil wells. Despite the dramatic decline in their audience, the
broadcast networks and their affiliates are among the most profitable
businesses in the United State, when measured in terms of profit margins.
You are the one who is stuck in the mud, because you cannot understand that
these local broadcast stations ARE migrating to the new OTT walled gardens -
i.e. VMVPD services like Hulu live.
In ancient times, the only practical way to accomplish this feat was
"broadcast." Meaning unaddressed delivery to all. The only filtering was done
by the receiver, and all available content was always banging at the door of
each receiver. That is no longer the case.
Broadcasters were not banging on our doors Bert. They were banging on the doors
at the FCC, seeking protection for their monopoly. In this they succeeded for
more than three decades before they saw ANY meaningful competition. When they
finally got real competition they banged on the doors of Congress and got a
"golden parachute" that has allowed them to continue to control almost
everything we watch on a TV.
After the FCC was forced to end its regulations that prevented the cable
industry from competing with broadcasters, there was a steady migration from
antennas to wires for fixed TV services. When Congress passed The Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, more than 60% of
U.S. homes subscribed to cable. By 2012 93% of U.S. homes subscribed to cable,
DBS, or a FTTH MVPD service.
The delivery network can now route only the content requested by the
receiver, to that receiver. A more efficient way to load the delivery
network, but at the cost of needing a routing infrastructure.
NVOD has been around since the '80s. Real VOD - i.e. a dedicated stream
requested by a receiver - became possible when cable went digital. The
dedicated cable networks then became ISP networks enabling the modern day
ability to access VOD services outside of the MVPD system. And cellular
wireless has made it possible to extend on demand services to mobile devices.
I would question whether this is more efficient. It takes a massive
infrastructure to replace the older, mostly one-way MVPD infrastructure with
networks that can support tens of millions of two-way unicast streams. But it
is today's REALITY - thanks to decades of unimpeded investment and growth, the
Internet is now ready to augment and/or replace the dedicated facilities based
MVPD systems.
It is unlikely that they will be ALLOWED to deliver broadcast network
content OTT,
Not a bit unlikely.
In the context that I described, it is not only likely, it is a certainty.
Local stations will be available as part of VMVPD bundles and direct to
consumer walled garden services like CBS All Access. They will not be allowed
to offer network and syndicated content FOTI.
The content owners know how the Internet has to be used, to be effective, and
are already dealing with third parties, to help in the Internet delivery
process. It's a matter of the broadcast companies, i.e. stations and station
groups, filling a need that **still needs to be filled**, toward the edges of
broadband networks, to scale up the OTT delivery of TV. This is necessary, as
millions of more people start using Internet streaming for their TV fix.
Yup. Local broadcasters will certainly be offered in VMVPD local station
bundles, and they may play a role hosting network edge servers. It is far more
likely that these servers will be co-located in local ISPs, not local broadcast
stations.
Craig, you are still stuck thinking in legacy terms, which optimized the
profits earned from a 40 year old system of TV content delivery. Your
"retrans consent" insistence sounds really old fashioned, and at the very
least, you might explore how it would translate to this new, emerging reality.
We have explored this multiple times in the past few years, not to mention in
this thread. The deal is already done.
The old-fashioned broadcast tower does NOT need to be part of that equation.
Its use will diminish in due course - just look again at the title of the
article we're supposed to be responding to, to understand why.
The use of those towers diminished over the past three decades. They are there
for simple reasons:
1. A TV station in every Congressional district
2. A low cost TV service for those who cannot afford to pay for TV
3. "The public interest" - the main rationale that has kept the FCC from being
shut down for two decades.
4. Retransmission consent fees
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/17/15327840/netflix-earnings-report-q1-2017-subscribers-quarterly-releas
These are mere speculations of people using legacy solutions now.
No Bert. This is the "speculation" of one of your heros, Reed Hastings. He
fully understands the role that Netflix plays in the overall TV entertainment
industry.
Point being, VMVPDs are a hail Mary throwback to a legacy optimized solution,
which had to live within the constraints of legacy program delivery
technologies.
No Bert. They are the logical evolution of the TV entertainment business model
that was created as the "unintended consequence" of the 1992 Cable Act.
They offer far more than the old facilities based systems that served fixed
TVs. They can deliver both live and VOD content to screens everywhere at any
time.
Perhaps this simple analogy can help break through your mental block:
VMVPDs as just TV Everywhere that replaces the dedicated MVPD facilities with
both fixed and wireless ISP access.
And even there, NO BROADCST TOWERS NECESSARY.
As I pointed out yesterday, broadcast towers have not been needed for a very
long time. Yesterday I talked about AuntMinnie and the government cheese ATSC
STB program. I did not include this paragraph:
For the billions Congress was willing to advance to stave off a revolt, it
could have bought basic tier cable, telco, or satellite subscriptions for the
last ten million U.S. households lacking such service, clearing the entire TV
band—all 67 channels (402 MHz). I proposed this in a 2001 paper, “The Digital
TV Transition: Time to Toss the Negroponte Switch.” The title refers to
Nicholas Negroponte’s observation that while we were born into a world where
phone calls traveled on wires and TV came via wireless, we would die in a
world just reversed. It’s not entirely on point—satellite TV arose to
broadcast video programs, while voice-over-Internet via wires is alive and
well—but you get the drift.
The DTV transition was a golden opportunity for spectrum allocations to
change with the times, leapfrogging legacy lock-ins. Indeed, many hundreds of
stations applied to the FCC for permission to switch off their analog
broadcasts early to save electricity costs (reflecting the fact that while
stations did not pay for spectrum, they did pay for transmitter power). By
June 2009, more than one-third of analog stations had already gone dark.
Bert drones on...
But many more flexible options are available now, to deliver content tailored
to what consumers really want, and these reborn broadcast companies could
play a significant role.
What reborn broadcast companies Bert?
ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox?
Sinclair and Nexstar?
If you are trying to suggest that local broadcasters can take the live content
of the broadcast networks online, think again. That live content will only be
available via subscription bundles.
If you are suggesting that the stations can offer VOD access to network shows
like Hulu and Yahoo, think again. Those rights are the basis for Hulu and other
SVOD services.
If you think a station can survive without a transmitter, retrans consent
dollars, and live network, think again. The limited amount of local content
produced by stations cannot sustain a viable OTT business model, in ugh the
same way that local newspapers are struggling to survive.
Please help us understand where the local stations will get their content if
the transmitters are turned off.
So the question of whether broadcasters should migrate to ATSC 3.0,
update the upper layers of the ATSC 1.0 standard, or DO NOTHING,
I say, do nothing with THAT aspect. Just keep THAT broadcast available, as
long as it is being used in significant numbers. But there's plenty other,
new work, that needs to be done. H.264 compression in the broadcast??
Whatever! Leapfrog that and got to H.265, if you're so concerned. I don't
understand your fascination with H.264.
It's a lot like all of those old NTSC TVs that were replaced with flat panel
TVs. Today there are BILLIONS of devices that can decode h.264. Those devices
will be around for the rest of this decade, if not longer. h.265 is just
starting to appear; I suspect it will tag along with the upgrades to 5G for
mobile devices
They need the contractual rights
You saw how Comcast is working hard to get those rights, and has succeeded to
some degree already, did you not?
Nope. They have not made any progress with delivering live networks outside of
their service footprint. They are offering PPV sales and rentals outside of
their service footprint, as do Amazon, Apple, Google, et al.
I even pointed it out for you. The truth is, content owners are far from
stupid. They negotiate rights that make sense today and tomorrow, they don't
stay stuck in the mud of 1948, or even 1978. What Comcast can do, the station
groups should also be able to do. New game in town, Craig. New agreements,
new rules.
Keep dreaming Bert. You have no clue about sales and marketing issues, or the
role that the political/regulatory environment the TV industry operates in
dictates the business models.
The Internet did not change that; just another new technology to conquer.
The congloms are conquering, and retaining all their perks; the Title II
decision allow the FCC to help maintain their oligopoly.
Regards
Craig
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
- » [opendtv] TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside - Craig Birkmaier
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Manfredi, Albert E
- » [opendtv] Re: TV Technology: Smart TVs Nudging Roku, Chromecast Aside- Craig Birkmaier